The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat

[BT]

Because of course, the prime directive is that of punishing its citizenry

Not its citizenry. The purpose of government is to govern. In this nation, that means by enforcement of duly enacted laws. And the main means of enforcement is arrest and prosecution of those who choose to break those laws. IE punish lawbreakers. See Scott Peterson.

But you seem to be saying the main purpose of government is cradle to grave security for its citizenry.


Are you sure you didn't vote for Obama?

[Plane]

We want clarity, and nature gives us little of it.

I am reminded of a scene in the cartoon "King of the Hill" in which young Bobby Hill, who was taking Ritalin of some other ADD medication had his senses so honed that he remarks "There is a jug of milk in the refrigerator that its about to go bad... There! It just went bad!"

We expect a similar moment in which the fetus gets its rights from the government. *BING!* "There! Now it's a citizen!"

The two moments most significant would be (a) the moment of conception and (b) the moment of birth. The first is undetectable for all practical purposes, so I say we go with the latter, which is at least the most obvious in the entire process.  I really doubt the ability of Supreme Court justices to be absolutely correct in this judgment.

  There is no ambiguity in the natural situation. Children move from absolutely dependant on Parents to Independence along a smooth continuum that requires about thirty years.

    If you accept it as logical that the government needs a deviding line between person and non person that the government can palce arbitarialy then by what logic is the government prevented from drawing a line at too old to protect the same way that they drew a line across too young to protect?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Actually, there is probably NOT a possibility of an actual number of days in which every single fetus becomes potentially viable outside the womb. It almost certainly depends on the individual fetus, and as such, the facts do not make it possible for the law to be exact, no matter who makes the decision. But nine doctors of obstetrics could almost certainly come closer than the current (or any) Supreme Court.

[Plane]

Actually, there is probably NOT a possibility of an actual number of days in which every single fetus becomes potentially viable outside the womb. It almost certainly depends on the individual fetus, and as such, the facts do not make it possible for the law to be exact, no matter who makes the decision. But nine doctors of obstetrics could almost certainly come closer than the current (or any) Supreme Court.

And if nine of every ten doctors of obstetrics refuse to perform Abortions , this indicates to you nothing?

[Xavier_Onassis]

(a) I question that this is the case.
(b) I was simply mentioning that doctors would know more about this specific age of the fetus than the average Supreme Court justice. I was not seeking to engage them in abortions, so this is a moot issue.

[Plane]

  What is in question is whether Abortion should be illegal .

    And whether the Government has a right to define a person as a Person or a non person on account of age.
     So far you have not made logic usefull in making your case.     

New Zealand, along with other countries, faces a shortage of trained abortion providers. One reason is that many younger doctors specialising in obstetrics and gynaecology, are choosing not to train as abortionists.

http://www.life.org.nz/abortion/abortionethicalkyissues/abortionistsob-gyns/

There are several reasons for the declining number of abortion providers:
The "greying" of current providers. In the US, the majority are close to retirement.
Picketing and violence that targets abortion providers (not in NZ)
Social stigma and marginalisation
Professional isolation and peer pressure
The perception of abortion as an execution of a human life.

The one in Italics is mine , it wasn't there originally but this article was written by someone who thought that a shortage of Abortion providers is a problem not good news ,so I took the liberty of including the obvious missing factor.

British medical selection panels in general, regard the provision of abortion services as a primary health service and a woman's legal right. NHS hospitals usually roster staff for a daily schedule of abortions, and when O&Gs and nurses chose to opt out on the grounds of conscience, the workload is increased for the other staff.

Therefore, it appears logical to fill training and hospital posts with doctors who are prepared to provide abortion services.

Ugh this writer is seriously thickheaded.

The situation in America (as of June, 2003):
87% of all U.S. counties and 97% of all rural U.S. counties have no abortion provider
Since 1982, the number of abortion providers has decreased by 37%
58% of all OB/GYN doctors providing abortions are 50 years of age or older. This means the number of providers will continue to decline as they reach retirement age, unless younger clinicians learn to perform abortions.
In 1983, 42% of all OB/GYN doctors performed abortions. In 1995, only 33% did. The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed by a small group of doctors. Only 2% of U.S. OB/GYN doctors perform more than 25 abortions per month.
72% of OB/GYN residency programmes do not train all residents in abortion procedures.
From 1982 to 2000, the number of hospitals providing abortions decreased by 57%.
Only 15% of chief residents in family medicine residency programmes, have experience providing first-trimester abortions.
"Physician-only" laws in most states require careful legal research to ascertain whether advanced nurses and midwives can provide medical and surgical abortions.
Many nursing programmes do not adequately prepare students to care for women having abortions, contributing to a shortage of nurses willing and trained to assist abortion providers.
Abortion is one of the only medical procedures with a "conscience clause", allowing doctors and nurses to refuse to participate in the care of a patient.

  If only we could persuade the most of the Doctors and nurses that Abortion is alright , it would decrease the workload on the minority willing to rake in that big money for the easy work of assassinating the innocent and helpless.  Perhaps we should not require so much training for the performance of this procedure?

"Working conditions for clinicians providing abortions are frequently unsatisfying. For clinicians who have spent years honing their diagnostic skills, abortion largely underutilizes their abilities and relegates them to the role of a technician. As noted by Potts (Lancet, 1975): ?When the patient was a client who had decided on the prescription (abortion), this eliminated half the medical mythology and demoted the doctor to technician or tradesman.'"

"Both the evolution of new clinic personnel (abortion counsellors and nurse-practitioners), and the rapid flow of patients in clinics, have depersonalised the abortion experience, not for the patient but for the clinician. For some, communication may be limited to a brief discussion with the patient on the operating table before surgery."

"Isolation can occur. Clinicians whose practice is limited to abortion services may become estranged from the medical community. The tedium of largely repetitive operations can be compounded by the emotional stress surrounding unwanted pregnancies and families in crisis. A practice limited to women with personal crises, differs markedly from the usual mix of patients in an obstetric and gynaecological practice. On the other hand, some physicians find helping women to resolve personal crises especially rewarding."


Proposed solutions

Oh this has got to be good.

Dr Grimes recommends more integration of abortion training into residency programmes, increased pay and training nurses and midwives to perform first-trimester abortions.

He concludes: "Abortion is the most divisive social issue of our time. Despite strong professional support for legal abortion from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, one of their 1985 news releases observes: ?There remains a lack of enthusiasm and even opposition from many gynaecologists, who consider abortion a distasteful chore. The medical profession must be educated to the fact that abortion is no longer a favour to bestow, but rather an obligation to perform.

"consider abortion a distasteful chore"

Well DuH! 

[Plane]

According to an October 17th story in Catholic News Service, obstetricians and medical students intending to specialize in obstetrics are being increasingly pressured to take part in abortion procedures. This pressure, coupled with an excessive litigation threat, is causing a numbers crisis in the obstetrics field.

Dr. Robert Walley, founder of MaterCare International, said that he had no idea how much of an effect legalized abortion would have on practicing obstetricians. Walley initially practiced obstetrics in England under the National Health System but when he refused to perform abortions he was told to either switch specialties or leave. Walley chose to leave and moved to Canada where he worked as a faculty member at a new medical school. He says “They weren’t happy I had a particular view of things, and that pursued me until I retired from clinical practice last year.”http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/1961/jan/6101801

[Plane]

  There are some things it would be better if you didn't know.

A British doctors group has prepared new preliminary guidelines saying women should be told there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. That’s not going over well with an organization that educates women about the link.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) has released new guidelines on The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion that say, “Women should be informed that induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer.”

The RCOG’s guidelines cite a review that says, “Failure to provide this information is a direct threat to maternal autonomy, diminishing a woman’s ability to give informed consent.”

Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer says the guidelines make it appear the British doctors are “putting their wallets ahead of their patients’ health much like tobacco executives.”

“Do they read standard medical texts at the RCOG?” she told LifeNews.com. “Increased childbearing, starting at a younger age, and increased duration of breastfeeding sharply reduce breast cancer risk. The woman choosing abortion has a greater risk than the one choosing to give birth. The loss of the protective effect is only one of three breast cancer risks associated with induced abortion.”

“Two Americans and three Australians have successfully sued their doctors for failing to warn about the risks of breast cancer and emotional harm,” said Malec. “It would serve them right at the RCOG to be sued for malpractice.”

Professor Joel Brind, an endocrinologist at Baruch College in New York, worked with several scientists on a 1996 paper published in the Journal of Epidemiol Community Health showing a “30% greater chance of developing breast cancer” for women who have induced abortions. He’s also noted that abortion has resulted in at least 300,000 cases of breast cancer causing a woman’s death in the United States since the Supreme Court allowed virtually unlimited abortion in its 1973 case.

Dozens of other studies have shown the abortion-breast cancer link and, during the last 22 months alone, four epidemiological studies and one review reported an abortion-breast cancer link. One study included National Cancer Institute branch chief Louise Brinton as co-author.

“We count nearly 50 published epidemiological studies since 1957 reporting a link. Biological and experimental studies also support it,” Malec notes.

Despite the effort to hide the abortion-breast cancer link the RCOG guidelines acknowledge a “small increase in risk of subsequent preterm birth, which increases with the number of abortions.” But Canadian researcher Brent Rooney says that is minimizing the abortion-preterm birth link and he called the RCOG’s use of the word, “small,” “the language of cover-up.”

In August, Dr. Jay Iams, a professor and vice chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Ohio State University wrote a report on caring for women prior to pre-term birth in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Iams wrote, “Contrary to common belief, population-based studies have found that elective pregnancy terminations in the first and second trimesters are associated with a very small but apparently real increase in the risk of subsequent spontaneous pre-term birth.”

In July 2006, a report from the National Academies of Science found  a first-trimester abortion, the most common abortion procedure, is linked to an increasing risk of premature birth. In the report is a list of “immutable medical risk factors associated with preterm birth” and “prior first-trimester abortion” is listed third among other risk factors that increase the risk of having a subsequent premature birth.

The IOM reported that premature births before 37 weeks gestation represent 12.5 percent of all U.S. births, a 30% increase since 1981. Abortion became legally accessible in 1973 and the number of abortions peaked in the early 1980s as it became more ingrained in society.

Meanwhile, the closing date on the new guidelines from RCOG is February 26 — the date by which health officials and researchers can submit their consultations on the guidelines.

International experts on the abortion-breast cancer link have submitted their consultations saying the guidelines are flawed. They include Brind, and Patrick Carroll, a statistician and actuary from Pension and Population Research Institute in London.

[sirs]

Because of course, the prime directive is that of punishing its citizenry

Not its citizenry. The purpose of government is to govern.

LOL.....in the dictionary under redundant, it says see redundant.  Nice dodge. 

 

But you seem to be saying the main purpose of government is cradle to grave security for its citizenry.

Yea, because protection equates to cradle to grave security.          Boy, you are indeed mastering the art of misrepresentation

[BT]

Yea, because protection equates to cradle to grave security.   

Then define your terms instead of wasting my time with your circular blather. Because Laci Peterson and her child certainly were not protected by the state. Were they?

[sirs]

My terms have been clear from the onset....protection to those who can not otherwise protect themselves.  In even greater detail, protection from grave threats, be it physical or when their rights are being abused/violated.  I mean, its pretty clear what my intent has been Bt.  But I suppose I can understand your rhetorical flailing.  I highlighted an egregious inconsistency on your part, and you went into knee jerk defensive mode, complete with the apparent obligatory semantic somersaults & misrepresentation tact.

And no need to worry about Lacy.  Ignoring the fact that Lacy no longer existed, as her mind was largely no more than a bowl of neuronic dust, with squat brain activity and squat quality of life, and that the law provided the spouse with medical power of attorney, sure can't say the same of a viable unborn child now, can we.  But hell, we have too many people in this country already, right Bt.  Probably best to allow their murders go unchecked.  Out of sight, out of mind, right?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Abortions are not murders.

[sirs]

I know...it's Government apparently punishing unborn children

[BT]

My terms have been clear from the onset....protection to those who can not otherwise protect themselves.  In even greater detail, protection from grave threats, be it physical or when their rights are being abused/violated.  I mean, its pretty clear what my intent has been Bt.  But I suppose I can understand your rhetorical flailing.  I highlighted an egregious inconsistency on your part, and you went into knee jerk defensive mode, complete with the apparent obligatory semantic somersaults & misrepresentation tact.

And no need to worry about Lacy.  Ignoring the fact that Lacy no longer existed, as her mind was largely no more than a bowl of neuronic dust, with squat brain activity and squat quality of life, and that the law provided the spouse with medical power of attorney, sure can't say the same of a viable unborn child now, can we.  But hell, we have too many people in this country already, right Bt.  Probably best to allow their murders go unchecked.  Out of sight, out of mind, right?

Do you know who Laci Peterson was?

[sirs]

Isn't she the Florida woman, irrepairably brain damaged, in a constant persistive vegetative state?  Lemme google really fast, perhaps I have the wrong person in mind.........Ooop, my bad, wrong person.  Yea, Government sure dropped the ball on that one.  Which ........ I have no idea why you've brought her up now.   

Scott, I see, was charged with 2 counts of murder.  OK, you're helping to reinforce my point again.